432 P.3d 233
Okla.2018Background
- Two federal district courts certified questions asking whether Oklahoma inmates may bring tort claims for denial of medical care under Article II, §§ 7 and 9 of the Oklahoma Constitution and whether any such private cause of action would apply retrospectively.
- Plaintiffs are estates of two inmates (Barrios and Foutch) who died in county jails; suits asserted federal §1983 claims plus state tort claims alleging violations of state constitutional protections against cruel/unusual punishment and deprivation of due process.
- Trial courts dismissed the state constitutional tort claims on the ground Oklahoma had not recognized a state-law tort remedy for inmate medical-care deprivations and certified questions to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
- This Court examined whether to extend its earlier Bosh decision (recognizing a common-law constitutional tort for excessive force under Art. II, §30) to permit state constitutional torts for inmate medical care (Art. II, §§7 and 9).
- After Bosh, the Oklahoma Legislature amended the Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA) to (1) define “tort” to include constitutional violations, (2) make the GTCA the exclusive source of the State’s tort liability, and (3) subject constitutional torts to GTCA limits and immunities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Art. II, §§7 or 9 permit a state common-law tort for denial of inmate medical care despite GTCA immunity | Art. II creates a private damages remedy for inmates analogous to Bosh/Washington | GTCA (as amended) preserves sovereign immunity and precludes money-damages torts tied to prison operation or maintenance | No — Sections 7 and 9 do not allow a state tort claim for denial of medical care because the Legislature has made GTCA exclusive and it bars such claims |
| Whether Bosh should be extended to Art. II §§7/9 claims | Bosh supports recognizing constitutional torts outside GTCA limits | Legislative amendments to GTCA foreclose judicial expansion; separation-of-powers favors legislative decision | Declined to extend Bosh; legislative amendment supersedes common-law expansion |
| Whether a constitutional tort remedy would be recognized under separation-of-powers and federal precedent | Plaintiffs rely on federal cases (e.g., Carlson) implying damages remedies for some constitutional violations | Court cites Ziglar and separation-of-powers concerns; recognition of new constitutional torts is disfavored and is for the Legislature | Court declines to create such a remedy, deferring to Legislature |
| Whether question of retrospective application of a newly recognized remedy must be decided | Plaintiffs sought retroactivity if a remedy were recognized | Defendants argued immunity bars any such claim now; legislative change controls | Moot — because no new state constitutional tort was recognized, retrospective question not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- Bosh v. Cherokee County Governmental Building Authority, 305 P.3d 994 (Okla. 2013) (recognized a common-law constitutional tort for excessive force under Okla. Const. art. II, §30)
- Washington v. Barry, 55 P.3d 1036 (Okla. 2002) (assumed potential state constitutional tort under art. II, §9 for inmates but dismissed for inadequate pleading)
- Vanderpool v. State, 672 P.2d 1153 (Okla. 1983) (explained Legislature controls sovereign immunity; courts should defer to statute)
- Perry v. City of Norman, 341 P.3d 689 (Okla. 2014) (discussed interaction of statutory tort remedies and any court-created constitutional torts)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (U.S. 1980) (recognized Eighth Amendment damages remedy in narrow circumstances)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1971) (federal precedent recognizing implied damages remedy against federal officers)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (U.S. 2017) (federal Supreme Court: recognizing new constitutional damages actions is disfavored; separation-of-powers considerations counsel deferring to legislature)
- Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1989) (holding states are not subject to money damages actions in state courts under §1983 against the state treasury)